While I have no doubt that the landing on the moon actually happened, the picture above is clearly not evidence for it by any kind of measurement, because it can easily be a made up by some other way.

The issue of what is valid evidence needs to be taken more seriously than that.

]]>By: MuleHeadJoehttp://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/still-flying/#comment-44659
Mon, 06 Aug 2012 01:08:03 +0000http://theness.com/neurologicablog/?p=4706#comment-44659I am continually aghast at people who look at these amorphous black-n-white / grey-scale blobs (or pixelated squares as may be the case) and scream “you SEE!?!?!? that is CLEARLY a (name object under discussion here)!!!!!!” Face-on-Mars, anybody? The resolution I see in those pix above are absolutely NO better than the crap I see in the National Weekly News of the Enquiring World.

I’m not a conspiracy buff (although I am open to how “conspiracy” seems to be the best way to describe the internal political process by which our gubmint took us to war in Iraq a decad ago), and so I usually cannot stand for people claiming to have proof of anything based on a loose interpretation of some vague evidence. The picture above *appears* to be a lunar landing sight, and that one little speck *might be* the flag’s shadow. However, with the current resolution in that specific photograph, it is an absolute 100% factual impossiblity to state beyond doubt that what it might be, actually is.

This is what I personally hate about so many “scientists” (especially those on TV [*cough* Discovery Channel, TLC, History Channel *cough*])… instead of saying “this is scientifically valid evidence to support the idea that XXXXX” they say “this is that!” with so much certainty that it makes me sick. “Scientists” do NOT know what dinosaurs looked like, smelled like, sounded like. These things can be theorized and evidence can be found and promoted to support certain notions. However, claiming certitude is in fact NOT scientific. Kinda like why religiosity is NOT scientific — claiming certitude based on limited evidence.

Well, thems my two cents at least.

]]>By: Steven Dalyhttp://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/still-flying/#comment-44643
Wed, 01 Aug 2012 21:20:08 +0000http://theness.com/neurologicablog/?p=4706#comment-44643As we laugh at the idea of a fake moon landing we miss a salient point; just because the moon landing happened doesn’t mean Nixon didn’t consider having a fake version just in case.

While I’m not asserting he definitely created one, it is important to remember how critical this event was to America’s–and Nixon’s– prestige and real power in the world. It essentially won the “space race” with the Russians, captured the world’s attention like nothing ever had before, and put the USA/capitalism at the pinnacle of human achievement.

It certainly would have been very difficult–involving too many people, not to mention a live TV feed–to pull off such a counterfeit if the mission had crashed ingloriously, or malfunctioned along the way, though national security and prestige might have been effectively evoked. Still it probably occurred to someone around Nixon, if not to Tricky Dick himself, that a “back-up” plan could be created as a possible hedge against the immense gamble, considering how huge the stakes were at the time. Knowing Nixon wouldn’t he want every bet covered to insure “triumph”? Just how or if it could be “inserted” into the “narrative” would have come later, as would the explanation of the “loss of ship and crew” on the return voyage.

So for at least a laugh, google “Kubrick fake moon landing” and hear the story of how Kubrick lent his set from 2001 as a return favor for being granted access to the Pentagon for “Strangelove”. Watch the “outtakes”. You won’t be disappointed.

well thats irelivant as the landings left mirrored reflectors that can be used by amiture cosmoligists with a laser and accurate timers to calculate the distance from the earth to the moon. Anyone can do it. “Crazy” people will still be “crazy” even if you give them rock solid evidence that they should not be.

PS anyone excited about the landing on mars this weekend? I just hope they did the standard to metric conversions this time!

]]>By: nybgrushttp://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/still-flying/#comment-44636
Wed, 01 Aug 2012 02:34:32 +0000http://theness.com/neurologicablog/?p=4706#comment-44636oh please. as if this proves anything. the very same people who faked the moon landing are now… so many years later… giving us “proof?” Ha. Ever heard of photo shop? Or CGI. This is so obviously a fake to keep everyone in the dark.

Astronomers like to measure angular diameters in arcseconds, since they typically deal with small angles (an arcsecond is 1/3600th of a degree, like a regular second is 1/3600th of an hour). The lunar landing sites therefore appear to be about 0.027 arcseconds in size from the surface of the Earth.

The resolution of Earth-bound telescopes aren’t just limited by their optical capabilities (focus, vibrations, the quality and alignment of lenses). There is another limit based upon turbulent flow of atmospheric gases known as “seeing”. Because of these atmospheric disturbances, at sea level and on a relatively calm night, the smallest resolvable feature has an angular size of ~1.5 arcseconds.

The very best seeing occurs at mountaintop observatories, but that’s still around 0.4 arcseconds. So, through a perfect telescope and observing from the optimal Earth-bound location, the landing site would look like a faint blob.

]]>By: ccbowershttp://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/still-flying/#comment-44633
Tue, 31 Jul 2012 23:48:43 +0000http://theness.com/neurologicablog/?p=4706#comment-44633“Of course I have to point out that these LRO photos are the nail in the coffin of absurd moon landing conspiracy theories (as if that were needed).”

Hmm. A missing flag from the first time humans were on the moon? That won’t feed conspiracy theorists at all. I can just imagine the comments now

]]>By: ccbowershttp://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/still-flying/#comment-44632
Tue, 31 Jul 2012 23:43:01 +0000http://theness.com/neurologicablog/?p=4706#comment-44632I wonder how faded these look so many years later. I am curious about photodegredation on the moon in comparison to the ways they could fade on Earth (even leaving the direct damage from the wind out of it since I think that would have destroyed the flags long ago). Although the moon does not have the filter that the earth has for electromagnetic radiation (therefore the flags are subject to much more UV and other damaging parts of the spectrum)- the moon also doesn’t have rain or oxygen to aid in the process of fading. Then there is the effect of temperature fluctuations.
]]>